|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 161 Records
-
2023 (3) TMI 998 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking release of seized goods - Revenue contends that the deposit made by the petitioner is not sufficient for the release of seized goods as the commodity which has been seized by the department is a perishable good and by virtue of section 67 (8), and a different procedure for deposit of amount is contemplated than what is observed by the petitioner.
Whether the goods seized by the department qualifies to be a perishable good or a non-perishable good?
HELD THAT:- On facts, it is not in dispute that the goods seized by the department are included within the definition of tobacco and, therefore, there exists no doubt in coming to the conclusion that the seized goods would fall within the definition of perishable goods. While taking such a view, it may be observed that the notification issued by the department on 13th June, 2018 is otherwise not under challenge.
Learned counsel for the State also submits that the deposit made by the petitioner under section 74 (5) of the GST Act cannot be of any help to the petitioner’s cause for the purposes to release of goods in terms of section 67 (8) of the Act.
The petitioner having not complied with the requirement of release of seized goods i.e. perishable goods, is not entitled to any direction by this court for release of such seized goods.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall deposit the requisite amount which may be warranted treating the goods to be perishable and in such circumstance the department be directed to release the goods, forthwith. In the event petitioner complies with the requirement of law for release of perishable goods under the applicable provisions, such claim of the petitioner would be dealt with expeditiously and in accordance with law - this petition is consigned to the record.
-
2023 (3) TMI 997 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-speaking order - Non-constitution of Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/S CHANDRA SAIN, SHARDA NAGAR, LUCKNOW THRU. ITS PROPRIETOR MR. CHANDRA SAIN VERSUS U.O.I. THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND 5 OTHERS [2022 (9) TMI 1047 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and the petition is to be allowed on that ground alone - it was held in the case that In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure – 2) is set aside.
However, this Court intends to record the manner in which the GST authorities have issued the show cause notice which from the bare perusal of the notice dated 28.08.2021 is reckless and as vague as it can be. Even the order dated 06.10.2021 is not only arbitrary but a reckless exercise of power which led to denial of the rights of freedom and business guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as such, the orders and the show cause notice can never pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The impugned orders dated 16.07.2021, 06.10.2021 and 07.12.2021 are set aside - The writ petition stands allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 996 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory remedy of appeal - non-constitution of the Tribunal - benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112 could not be availed - HELD THAT:- The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S.O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
This Court in the case of ANGEL ENGICON PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX [2023 (3) TMI 879 - PATNA HIGH COURT] has disposed of the writ petition with certain observations and directions, allowing certain liberty to the petitioner.
Writ petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 995 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory remedy of appeal - non-constitution of the Tribunal - benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112 could not be availed - cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - HELD THAT:- The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S.O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
This Court in the case of ANGEL ENGICON PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX [2023 (3) TMI 879 - PATNA HIGH COURT] has disposed of the writ petition with certain observations and directions, allowing certain liberty to the petitioner.
Writ petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 994 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory remedy of appeal - non-constitution of the Tribunal - benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112 could not be availed - HELD THAT:- The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S.O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
This Court in the case of ANGEL ENGICON PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX [2023 (3) TMI 879 - PATNA HIGH COURT] has disposed of the writ petition with certain observations and directions, allowing certain liberty to the petitioner.
Writ petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 993 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - Petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court inM/S. DURGA RAMAN PATNAIK VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS) (FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY) & OTHERS [2022 (10) TMI 676 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] and submits that in the present case also the Petitioner will opt for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation by complying with all the other requirements of depositing all the tax, penalty and interest due as payable and other formalities as required by law.
HELD THAT:- Notwithstanding the impugned order dated 6th June, 2022 of the CT & GST Officer, Angul Circle, the Petitioner is permitted to file a petition seeking revocation of the cancellation of registration provided such application is filed not later than 3rd April 2023 - Provided that the Petitioner makes payment of the tax, interest, penalty, fine, fees, etc., as may be payable, the above application will be entertained and appropriate order will be passed thereon in accordance with law within a further period of thirty (30) days.
The writ petition is disposed of
-
2023 (3) TMI 992 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - petitioner is desirous of availing statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act - non-constitution of the Tribunal - levy of ax, penalty and interest, under Section 74 of the Bihar Act 2017 for the tax period April 2020 to April 2021.
HELD THAT:- Due to non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act - The petitioner is also prevented from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112.
The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S.O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
This Court in the case of ANGEL ENGICON PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX [2023 (3) TMI 879 - PATNA HIGH COURT] has disposed of the writ petition with certain observations and directions, allowing certain liberty to the petitioner, where it was held that the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office.
The instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms, allowing the petitioner liberty as has been granted to the petitioner in above mentioned case.
-
2023 (3) TMI 991 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order - non-constitution of the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Due to non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act - Under the circumstances, the petitioner is also prevented from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112.
The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
This Court in the case of ANGEL ENGICON PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX [2023 (3) TMI 879 - PATNA HIGH COURT] has disposed of the writ petition with certain observations and directions, allowing certain liberty to the petitioner - The instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms, allowing the petitioner liberty as has been granted to the petitioner in above case.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 937 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of bank accounts on the ground that proceedings have been initiated against petitioner No.1 under Section 74 of the CGST Act - refund order obtained fraudulently - HELD THAT:- The refund sanction amount, as noticed above, is Rs.27.54 crores. Petitioners shall make a deposit of Rs.28.00 crores in a nationalised bank by way of fixed deposit on or before 14.04.2023 and handover the fixed deposit receipt (FDR) to respondent No.3 within seven days thereafter - Petitioners shall cooperate with the summons that may be issued by the respondents or on behalf of the respondents in connection with the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act - Respondents shall forthwith withdraw the provisional attachment of bank accounts of petitioner No.1 carried out on 08.03.2023.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 936 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Refund of the GST paid - grievance of the Petitioners is that Respondent No.3-CIDCO has not applied for refund and hence has filed this petition - section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Petitioners states that Petitioners would apply to the Respondents-Tax Authorities invoking section 54 of the Act claiming refund. The Respondents-Tax Authorities contend that Petitioners may not be entitled to apply under section 54 of the Act. However, it is for the Petitioners to make this application and it is for the authorities to deal with the same as per law.
The writ petitions is disposed off since Petitioners intend to apply for refund as per section 54 of the Act to the Respondent-Tax Authorities - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 935 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking waiver of pre-deposit of 7.5% of duty for maintaining an appeal - petitioner claims that the interest of the revenue is fully protected as the petitioner is entitled to the refund of CENVAT credit which has not been processed yet - HELD THAT:- This Court is unable to accept that the petitioner can set off its obligation to make a pre-deposit against its claim for the refund of CENVAT credit. However, there are merit in the contention that the petitioner’s remedy of an appeal would be rendered illusory in the given circumstances where the petitioner does not have the liquid funds to make the said deposit.
After some arguments, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner would make a deposit equal 2.5% of the liability instead of 7.5% to maintain the appeal against the order-in-original dated 26.11.2021 - it is considered apposite to direct that if the petitioner deposits an amount equivalent to 2.5% of its liability, the petitioner’s appeal against the order in original would not be rejected solely for want of the requisite pre-deposit.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 934 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of the same being barred by limitation - ex-parte order - opportunity of hearing not provided - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. This is for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences; (c) It is also found that the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were ex parte in nature.
The present writ petition is disposed off in the mutually agreeable terms.
-
2023 (3) TMI 933 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Heavy levy on duty with penalty - validity of the ‘e-Way bills’ had expired - Case of Revenue is that the whole ‘e-Way bills’ system has now gone online and the same could have been extended on time but was not extended - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the ‘e-Way bills’ had expired during the transit and the petitioner was not in a position to ask for its renewal to the competent authority when the vehicle entered into the territory of the State of Tripura. In view of the said fact, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority is not just and proper and the same is liable to be set aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 932 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-payment of interestRule-22(1)/Sub- Rule-(2A) of Rule-21A of CGST Rules - quashing of Show Cause Notice dated Nil on the ground that there is neither adjudication order nor proper Show Cause Notice - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Tpetitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the impugned demand payable as interest, which offer is not accepted by the Revenue in view of the law laid down in M/s RSB Transmissions (India) Limited [2022 (11) TMI 483 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT].
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner’s request for adjudication is pending before the said authority may be directed to be decided expeditiously.
The present petition is allowed on mutually agreeable terms.
-
2023 (3) TMI 879 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - non-constitution of Tribunal - recovery proceedings for the balance amount - HELD THAT:- It appears that conscious of the fact of non constitution of the Tribunal, a notification dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act has been issued by the State of Bihar - the notification dated 11.12.2019 provides that the period of limitation, for the purpose of preferring an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, shall start only after the date on which the President or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal, after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T. Act, enters office.
It is thus apparent that petitioner's statutory right to prefer an appeal survives.
Considering the facts and circumstances above, including the admitted position regarding non-constitution of the Tribunal under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T. Act, this Court is of the opinion that keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose - If the petitioner makes a deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section 6 of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, then the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section 9 of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
The statutory relief of stay on deposit of the statutory amount, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be open ended. For balancing the equities, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. The appeal would be required to be filed observing the statutory requirements after coming into existence of the Tribunal, for facilitating consideration of the appeal.
Application disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 878 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking unblocking of bank account in respect of the amount, which relates to the refund sanctioned and credited in the petitioner’s bank account - HELD THAT:- Section 73 and 74 of the Act also provide for recovery of refund where the same has been erroneously granted. Clearly, if the respondents are of the view that the refund has been erroneously granted, they would be required to take appropriate action under Section 73 or 74 of the Act. Recourse to Section 107(2) may be necessary only if the Adjudicating Authority has adjudicated any contentious issue, which in the opinion of the Commissioner requires to be reviewed.
Insofar as the blocking of the bank account is concerned, the said action is taken under Section 83 of the Act. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, the said order of attachment ceases to be operative on expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order. The respondents are required to adhere to the said discipline.
Considering the averment that the auditor has already reviewed the petitioner’s case and has directed refund for the sum of ₹38,786/-, it is considered apposite to direct the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s request for lifting of the block placed on the petitioner’s bank account and continue the same only if it is satisfied that the conditions as specified in Section 83 of the Act continue to exist.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 877 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the period covered under the refund applications did not match with the tax period for which GSTR-1 were filed - petitioner had filed GSTR-1 on a quarterly basis but the refunds were applied on a monthly basis.
HELD THAT:- Ms Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that although the requisite information has already been provided, the petitioner would have no objection in filing the aforesaid information as required by the respondents. She submits that the same would be done within a period of one week from today.
The impugned Order-in-Original and the impugned Order-in-Appeal are set aside - the respondents are requested to consider the petitioner’s claim for refund as per law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 876 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering that the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 cancelling the petitioner’s registration had been passed without affording, the petitioner, an opportunity to be heard, the same cannot be sustained.
The impugned order dated 27.11.2020 and the Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2020 are set aside. Consequently, the order in appeal dated 22.08.2022 is also set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s registration as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of one week from today.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 875 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - effective date of cancellation - HELD THAT:- There is no cavil that the petitioner’s registration is required to be cancelled. The petitioner had applied for the same, stating its reason for seeking cancellation as – “discontinued its business/ closure of business” - Although Respondent No. 1 had rejected the said application; it had proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s registration, albeit with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.
After some arguments, Mr. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection if the petitioner’s GSTIN registration is directed to be cancelled with effect from 11.01.2020 as prayed for by the petitioner - it is directed that the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration will take effect from 11.01.2020.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 874 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - case of petitioner is that while issuing the show cause notice, the authority never intended to invoke the jurisdiction under section 130 of the Act and further that without succeeding steps under section 129 releasing the goods, the invocation of section 130 readily stands to be arbitrary and illlegal exercise of powers.
HELD THAT:- As far as the release of the goods are concerned, the prayer of the petitioner is found reasonable. The goods could be released as per the precedent in Irshadbhai Hamidbhai Rain [2022 (12) TMI 1025 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], by imposing stricter condition of securing amount of tax and penalty.
The proceedings would continue under section 130 of the Act. In this regard, attention of the court was invited to the order of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. M/s. Shiv Enterprises and Ors. being Civil Appeal No. 359 of 2023 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19295 of 2022) [2023 (1) TMI 842 - SUPREME COURT] wherein in the similar circumstances, the Apex Court was of the view that the proposed notice under section 130 was yet to be adjudicated.
The court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with certain conditions and directions. Learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is ready to comply with the conditions of the very nature imposed in Irshadbhai Hamidbhai Rain - it is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, confiscated and detained pursuant to impugned order dated 25.11.2022 (GST MOV 10) subject to the following conditions imposed.
Petition allowed in part.
........
|
